tshark_extract_files

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It does not disclose that extraction likely writes files to disk, whether the pcap is modified, or any authorization/rate limit concerns. The behavioral details are minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and key resources, making it efficient and easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of file extraction across multiple protocols, the description leaves out important context such as the default protocol (http), default output directory (/tmp/mcp-extracted), and behavior when files already exist. No output schema is provided, increasing the need for description completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds the list of protocols (which matches the enum) but no additional meaning beyond the schema for 'file' or 'outputDir'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'extract' and resources 'files from HTTP, DICOM, IMF, SMB, or TFTP traffic' and the pcap file context. It clearly states what the tool does but does not differentiate from sibling tools like tshark_export_objects or tshark_extract_credentials, though the name and purpose are distinct enough.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description only states what the tool does, with no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like tshark_export_objects or tshark_follow_stream. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.